Wagner v. State of Missouri

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of ReKwame Shevell Wagner for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1 ) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. IT IS F URTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability will be issued because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-338 (2003) (setting forth the standard for issuing a certificate of appealability). Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen on 1/19/2023. (KEK)

Case: 4:22-cv-00890-JMB Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/19/23 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #: 63

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
REKWANE SHEVELL WAGNER,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF MISSOURI,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:22 CV 890 JMB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner ReKwane Shevell Wagner’s petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). 1 The parties have consented to the
jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
I.

Procedural Background
On June 27, 2022, Petitioner pled guilty to one count of second-degree domestic assault.

He was sentenced that same day to a four-year term of incarnation; however, that term was
suspended, and he was placed on probation for a term of three years (Doc. 12-1, p. 1-2; Doc. 122). He did not appeal his conviction and sentence and has not sought any post-conviction relief
from the state courts. On August 25, 2022, Petitioner filed the pending petition asserting that he
was denied the right to a speedy trial and that trial counsel was ineffective. Respondent filed a
response arguing that the petition must be dismissed without prejudice because Petitioner failed to
exhaust state court remedies (Doc. 12). Petitioner has not filed a reply.

1

At the time the petition was filed, Petitioner was confined at the St. Louis County Justice Center. Subsequent mail
from Petitioner to the Clerk of Court was mailed from a home address in St. Louis, Missouri. However, mail sent to
that address was returned to the Clerk of Court as undeliverable. Petitioner has not provided an updated address and
Clerk of Court has been unable to verify a new address.

Page 1 of 4

Case: 4:22-cv-00890-JMB Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/19/23 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #: 64

II.

Legal Standards
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. §

2254(d), allows for habeas relief in Federal court only if a state court’s determination:
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court
of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the
facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2).
A state court’s decision is “contrary to” clearly established law if “it applies a rule that contradicts
the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court’s] cases, or if it confronts a set of facts that is
materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme Court] but reaches a different result.”
Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133, 141 (2005). A decision involves an “unreasonable application”
of clearly established law if “the state court applies [the Supreme Court’s] precedents to the facts
in an objectively unreasonable manner,” Brown, 544 U.S. at 141; Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S.
362, 405 (2000), or “if the state court either unreasonably extends a legal principle from [Supreme
Court] precedent to a new context where it should not apply or unreasonably refuses to extend that
principle to a new context where it should apply.” Id. at 406.
However, prior to seeking habeas corpus relief in federal court, Petitioner must “fairly
present” his claims to the state courts. Deck v. Jennings, 978 F.3d 578, 581 (8th Cir. 2020);
Murphy v. King, 652 F.3d 845, 848-849 (8th Cir. 2011); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) (“An
application for a writ of habeas corpus . . . shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant
has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State.”). Exhaustion requires “one
complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526
U.S. 838, 845 (1999). Claims raised in federal court that have not been presented in state court
Page 2 of 4

Case: 4:22-cv-00890-JMB Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/19/23 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #: 65

and for which there are no remaining state remedies are procedurally defaulted and should not be
considered further. Dansby v. Payne, No. 19-3006 (8th Cir. 2022); Stephen v. Smith, 963 F.3d
795, 799 (8th Cir. 2020).2 Such procedurally defaulted claims may nonetheless be considered if a
petitioner can demonstrate “cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged
violation of federal law” or a fundamental miscarriage of justice (i.e. actual innocence). Bousley
v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622 (1998); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 772, 750 (1991);
Morgan v. Javois, 744 F.3d 535, 538-539 (8th Cir. 2013).
In Missouri, a criminal defendant may file a direct appeal of his conviction and sentence
by filing a notice of appeal with the trial court within 10 days of a final judgment. Missouri
Supreme Court Rule 30.01 and 81.04(a). Once a direct appeal has been concluded, a criminal
defendant may file a Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 motion in the trial court to challenge,
among other things, the constitutionality of his sentence and conviction including claims that
counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. See also R.S.Mo. § 532.010 (“Every person
committed, detained, confined or restrained of his liberty, within this state, for any criminal or
supposed criminal matter, or under any pretense whatsoever, except when, according to the
provisions of this chapter, such person can be neither discharged nor bailed, or otherwise relieved,
may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus as herein provided, to inquire into the cause of such
confinement or restraint.”). Thereafter, he may appeal any decision of the trial court to the
Missouri Court of Appeals and the Missouri Supreme Court as stated above. Once he has
exhausted this procedure, Petitioner may seek relief from this court.

Procedural default also occurs when a state court’s decision on a question of federal law “rests on a state law ground
that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S.
722, 729-730 (1991).
2

Page 3 of 4

Case: 4:22-cv-00890-JMB Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/19/23 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #: 66

Petitioner has not exhausted the above state court remedies. Accordingly, the petition must
be dismissed without prejudice. Once Petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies, he may
refile his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court.
*****
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of ReKwame Shevell Wagner for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability will be issued because
Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-338 (2003) (setting forth the standard for
issuing a certificate of appealability).

/s/ John M. Bodenhausen
JOHN M. BODENHAUSEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 19th day of January, 2023.

Page 4 of 4